Posted on 08/24/2007 1:35:24 PM PDT by neverdem
(URBANA)---Some people in Champaign County are afraid their guns will be taken away. That's why pro-gun advocates are trying to get a resolution passed that would promise the 2nd amendment would be protected. People say they feel Chicago and Cook County is trying to run the rest of the state of Illinois. That's because Cook County put a gun ban into effect this past February on long guns, like rifles and shotguns. The ban says people can't even have the guns in their own home. Some people in Champaign County feel that's unconstitutional, and they went to the county board meeting Thursday night to speak up before the ban moves south.
"I don't understand how one county can do that to their citizens." Says Guns Rights Advocate Valinda Rowe "Then turn around and try to do it to the rest of the state. We've got to take a stand."
They did try and take that stand as around a dozen people spoke at the meeting, urging county board members to pass a resolution, saying Cook County's ban is unconstitutional. They'll have to wait though, because the board tabled the issue.
29 counties in the state have already passed an anti-gun ban resolution, people at the meeting hope Champaign County becomes the 30th to do so.
The ring around Chicago that includes Schaumburg, for example, is every bit as important as the heart of the city.
LOL! Kicked over a rock did we?
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson
Not.
That’s close to a quote form Gerald Ford however:
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. “
“An unarmed citizenry is a passive citizenry.”
Actually an unarmed citizenry is a passive serfdom.
I'll try again. Are there any limits to the police power mentioned in the Illinois Constitution? You have assured us that we can look to our states to protect our right to keep and bear arms. How is the Illinois protection of the right to keep and bear arms consistent with outlawing rifles with pistol grips? How is the police power sufficient to control attaching a four-ounce piece of plastic to a rifle stored in one's home?
Then they deserve what they get.
Of course. If a law infringes on a protected right, then it must pass judicial strict scrutiny.
"How is the Illinois protection of the right to keep and bear arms consistent with outlawing rifles with pistol grips?"
Because it doesn't outlaw the rifle itself. Perfectly legal without the pistol grip.
"How is the police power sufficient to control attaching a four-ounce piece of plastic to a rifle stored in one's home?"
That's twice now you've mentioned that it's plastic and that it's four ounces. Are you suggesting that plastic should be legal but not metal? That four ounces should be legal but not five?
You don't even live in Chicago. This law doesn't affect you one iota. Why do you feel a need to tell Chicagoans what rights they must protect? What's next? That they have to protect the right to an abortion?
The republican form of government mandated for each state by the US Constitution is at risk if Chicago is permitted to violate the Illinois Constitution. You're living in a dream land if you don't think the entire nation is affected by such liberal nonsense.
Furthermore, whether you like it or not, the Fourteenth Amendment protects the privileges and immunities of US citizenship for every citizen of Illinois. That includes the immunity from government infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
It's already been pointed out to you that the Mini-14 IS included in the Chicago ban, pistol grip or not. Sounds like the rifle itself is outlawed, doesn't it? Is that unconstitutional under the Illinois constitution or not?
You were asking about the pistol grip on the Ruger? Next time be more specific. I don’t have time for your silly gotcha games.
You can't claim that "incorporation" is an issue, because we are talking about a state constitution.
You can't claim that "the right of the people" is a right of the militia in the Illinois state constitution, because there is no militia clause.
You can't claim that the protection in the Illinois constitution is just a protection of the state to form a militia, because there wouldn't be any other government to protect it from.
The "right of the people" in the Illinois constitution is just that, an individual right.
As such, even you realize that strict scrutiny would apply to the Chicago ban. I'm asking you to apply it and tell me what limits the police power mentioned in the Illinois constitution. It would be refreshing to read that you find at least one gun law somewhere to be unconstitutional.
Or are you willing to believe that the right of the people of Illinois to keep and bear arms has not been infringed as long as one firearm of some type, selected by the state police, and locked in a safe unassembled, is permitted to them?
It apparently is, considering the lengths people have gone to in order to get a "legal" AR-15 type semi-auto carbine, with removeable magazine. This abortion is what it took to not have a "pistol grip" by CA definition.
.jpg)
Or you can go the route of a 10 round fixed magazine, which requires the take-down pin to be pulled and the upper and lower separated so you can load into the fixed 10 round magazine.
Wouldn't that be jolly in a firefight, or the next LA riot, but I repeat myself.
It is. According to CalGuns.net the SKS, with removable magazine was banned by name, while the functionally identical Mini-30 remains legal, at least until someone, even a criminal, gets shot with one. Curiously the BM-59, a Garand with removable magazine, is banned, while the superior M-1A (semi-auto only M-14, which is itself just a lightened Garand with removable magazine, remains legal. I guess they just wanted to ban poor people's guns, since the SKS is much cheaper than the Mini-14/30 and the M1A is more expensive than either, of course it's also a might more powerful. :)
Wether Mr. Bob sees a connection or not, it's right there in the Chicago ordinance's first "whereas" section.
WHEREAS, the Federal assault weapons ban, of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, as amended, 18 USC Sec. 921 et seq. expired on September 13, 2004; and
Ask about the Berretta M-9 and for that matter the Browning designed M1911A1 as well as some other .45 ACP semi-automatic handguns. Those are or were in use by the US Armed Forces, including the organized federal militia, the National Guard, of which I am a former member. IOW, they are demonstrably useful for militia and military purposes. Of course the correct to ask those questions would be when the Supreme Court was taking up the matter.
Besides, if the Supreme Court ruled that, what would it matter *what* state laws on the subject were if the Federal government banned handguns under the ruling. Such a law, constitutional by your reckoning, would override any state laws to the contrary, would it not?
I very much doubt that 99.9999% of our laws have been challenged and found to not be unconstitutional in some circuits, but with their cases not taken up by the Supreme Court. And of course one would have to ask Constitutional on what basis. The AWB was challenged by those manufacturers on Second Amendment grounds. It was found by the Circuit courts to not violate the Constitution in the ways that the plaintiffs alleged it did, but they never argued that it violated the second amendment, and being companies and not natural persons, they might not have had standing to challenge on the basis of a violation of a "right of the people", or maybe they would have, but in the event they did not.
Their rights and liberties are SUBJECT TO governmental fiat.
Sauron
The way the Illinois State Constitution is written, that is correct.
"I'm asking you to apply it and tell me what limits the police power mentioned in the Illinois constitution."
A state's police power allows the legislature to write laws concerning the protection of the public health, safety, morals and welfare. How do YOU want to limit that? Would you like to see that modified to say "the protection of public safety and welfare except for guns"? What is it you're asking for?
Given the past rulings of the various lower courts [City of Chicago v. Taylor, 774 N.E.2d 22 (1st Dist. 2002)], the rulings of the state supreme court [Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 470 N.E.2d 266 (Ill. 1984)], and the rulings of the 7th Circuit [Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982)], the only limits to the state police power are the same limits in your state -- the people.
"As such, even you realize that strict scrutiny would apply to the Chicago ban."
Correct. The 7th Circuit pointed that out:
"[S]ection 22 simply prohibits an absolute ban on all firearms…. There is no right under the Illinois Constitution to possess a handgun, nor does the state have an overriding state interest in gun control which requires it to retain exclusive control…. Once a local government identifies a problem and enacts legislation to mitigate or eliminate it, that enactment is presumed valid and may be overturned only if it is unreasonable, clearly arbitrary, and has no foundation in the police power."
"Or are you willing to believe that the right of the people of Illinois to keep and bear arms has not been infringed as long as one firearm of some type, selected by the state police, and locked in a safe unassembled, is permitted to them?"
I'll answer that if you will answer three questions for me. Pretend you're the State of Illinois and you want to pass that law. A) What is the compelling state interest in limiting the citizens to one arm, locked in a safe, unassembled? B) Is this law narrowly tailored or is it over-inclusive? In other words, does the compelling state interest you cited require that all guns be banned -- except for this one type that's allowed? (I'm curious. What makes this one type of gun the exception?) C) Is this law the least restictive way to solve the problem or is it overly broad?
That, as you may recognize, is the strict scrutiny test. Your law wouldn't pass it, and that's assuming the citizens of Illinois (a red state except for Chicago) would tolerate such a law even being considered.
Cook County (containing Chicago, Morton Grove, Wilmette, Skokie, and all these other goofy cities) is like a different country with Daley as dictator. Home rule (only for Cook County, by the way) allows him the flexibility to run his country the way he sees fit.
When people and businesses leave because of his high taxes, or when people purchase guns, ammo, cigarettes or gasoline in the outlying counties because they're cheaper, he lashes out and demands that the state legislature pass similar laws to his to "even the playing field". Funny and pathetic.
It does not.
The 14th amendment protects the privileges and immunities of "citizens of the United States" -- defined by the courts as those ''which owe their existence to the Federal Government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws.'' Some of those were defined in the Slaughter House Cases as "the right of access to the seat of Government and to the seaports, subtreasuries, land officers, and courts of justice in the several States, the right to demand protection of the Federal Government on the high seas or abroad, the right of assembly, the privilege of habeas corpus, the right to use the navigable waters of the United States, and rights secured by treaty."
In Twining v. New Jersey, the Court also recognized "the right to pass freely from State to State, the right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances, the right to vote for national officers, the right to enter public lands, the right to be protected against violence while in the lawful custody of a United States marshal, and the right to inform the United States authorities of violation of its laws."
Not the right to keep and bear arms.
Convicts have to wear long sleeves?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.